Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Health Consultation
GARY DEVELOPMENT LANDFILL
GARY LAKE COUNTY INDIANA
AUGUST 8 2012
US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Community Health Investigations Atlanta Georgia 30333
Health Consultation A Note of Explanation
A health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR or ATSDRrsquos Cooperative Agreement Partners to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site a chemical release or the presence of hazardous material In order to prevent or mitigate exposures a consultation may lead to specific actions such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies intensifying environmental sampling restricting site access or removing the contaminated material
In addition consultations may recommend additional public health actions such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure and providing health education for health care providers and community members This concludes the health consultation process for this site unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR or ATSDRrsquos Cooperative Agreement Partner which in the Agencyrsquos opinion indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued
You May Contact ATSDR Toll Free at 1-800-CDC-INFO
or Visit our Home Page at httpwwwatsdrcdcgov
HEALTH CONSULTATION
GARY DEVELOPMENT LANDFILL
GARY LAKE COUNTY INDIANA
Prepared By
US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Table of Contents
Summary ishy
Statement of Issues 1shy
Site Description 1shy
Background 2shy
Discussion 3shy
Wastes Disposed 3shy
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards 3shy
Onsite 3shy
SoilSediment 3shy
Groundwater 4shy
Landfill Cover 4shy
Methane Vents 4shy
Offsite 4shy
Grand Calumet River 5shy
Nearby waste sites 6shy
Public Health Implications 7shy
Non-cancer health effects 8shy
Cancer health effects 8shy
Summary 9shy
Community Concerns 9shy
Future Uses of GDL 9shy
Conclusions 10shy
Recommendations 10shy
Prepared By11shy
Reviewed By11shy
References 12shy
1
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana F1shyFigure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River
from site visit July 2011 F2shyFigure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples F5shyFigure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill F8shyFigure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9 F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill F11shyFigure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976 F12shyFigure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor
Canal F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development
Landfill T1
Table 2 Background Concentration Table T4
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development Landfill T5
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison T6
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg) T7
2
Acronyms
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AOC Area of Concern
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
CSO Combined Sewer Overflows
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
GDL Gary Development Landfill
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IRAC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ISBH Indiana State Board of Health
ISDH Indiana State Department of Health
NIPSCO Northern Indiana Public Service Company
NPL National Priorities List
NRS Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVOC Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
USDA US Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tanks
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
3
Summary
INTRODUCTION Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located in Gary Lake County Indiana was approved by the state in 1975 for operation primarily as a private sanitary landfill Although not permitted to do so records indicate that the landfill began accepting hazardous substances and wastes containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides shortly thereafter Large quantities of hazardous wastes were landfilled on this 62 acre property by the time the landfill was closed in 1989 In 1995 14 vents were installed by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) to collect methane gas for reuse however neither a collection system nor flares were ever installed The landfill is still owned by a private company Although some buildings remain on the landfill no activities are currently taking place anywhere on the landfill
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances Further there are hundreds of other point and nonpoint pollution sources within two miles The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL and the Grand Calumet River is on the southern border
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from GDL because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit on July 22 2011 with the US EPA the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the City of Gary ATSDR reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
Although this report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options future uses of GDL could offer opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas Although complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL ATSDR could provide another review of GDL if uses or other conditions change
i
CONCLUSION 1
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish over many years from areas where there is a fish and swimming advisory could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represents a public health hazard to people consuming those fish
ATSDR also concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
Leachate continues to discharge from the Gary Development Landfill (GDL) With no collection system in place those discharges run off into the Grand Calumet River Additionally past inspections (while in operation) revealed that contaminated waters (eg runoff leachate) were being discharged into the river
The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs (including PCBs) heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead and pesticides Those waterways are also impacted by conventional pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediment is as great as 20 feet deep The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Watersrdquo ldquoYou should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 2002
People could be exposed to contaminants in the Grand Calumet River (from GDL and many other nearby pollution sources) if they violate the advisory and eat the contaminated fish or contact the contaminated sediments
A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment of recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region showed that 70 of the 97 participants reported that they fish at least occasionally for consumption and 45 said that they usually eat the fish they catch (including in the advisory areas) The assessment showed notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups (ie Whites Blacks and Latinos) The angler assessment
concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk
information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish
ii
NEXT STEPS
pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) ranged from moderate (less than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mgkg) to high (27 mgkg) depending on the location and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels People including children who ate fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
ISDH and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
CONCLUSION 2
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
NEXT STEPS
ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on GDL pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus can harm peoplersquos health
Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and difficult to walk around due to overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill At times a spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
ATSDR recommends posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others
CONCLUSION 3
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils wetland sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to impact peoplersquos health but people are not coming into contact with them
The main road into the landfill is blocked off by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Although people can access the landfill from several perimeter roads on foot during the growing season the landfill is mostly overgrown It is difficult to walk around or reach
iii
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Health Consultation A Note of Explanation
A health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR or ATSDRrsquos Cooperative Agreement Partners to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site a chemical release or the presence of hazardous material In order to prevent or mitigate exposures a consultation may lead to specific actions such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies intensifying environmental sampling restricting site access or removing the contaminated material
In addition consultations may recommend additional public health actions such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure and providing health education for health care providers and community members This concludes the health consultation process for this site unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR or ATSDRrsquos Cooperative Agreement Partner which in the Agencyrsquos opinion indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued
You May Contact ATSDR Toll Free at 1-800-CDC-INFO
or Visit our Home Page at httpwwwatsdrcdcgov
HEALTH CONSULTATION
GARY DEVELOPMENT LANDFILL
GARY LAKE COUNTY INDIANA
Prepared By
US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Table of Contents
Summary ishy
Statement of Issues 1shy
Site Description 1shy
Background 2shy
Discussion 3shy
Wastes Disposed 3shy
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards 3shy
Onsite 3shy
SoilSediment 3shy
Groundwater 4shy
Landfill Cover 4shy
Methane Vents 4shy
Offsite 4shy
Grand Calumet River 5shy
Nearby waste sites 6shy
Public Health Implications 7shy
Non-cancer health effects 8shy
Cancer health effects 8shy
Summary 9shy
Community Concerns 9shy
Future Uses of GDL 9shy
Conclusions 10shy
Recommendations 10shy
Prepared By11shy
Reviewed By11shy
References 12shy
1
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana F1shyFigure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River
from site visit July 2011 F2shyFigure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples F5shyFigure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill F8shyFigure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9 F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill F11shyFigure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976 F12shyFigure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor
Canal F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development
Landfill T1
Table 2 Background Concentration Table T4
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development Landfill T5
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison T6
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg) T7
2
Acronyms
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AOC Area of Concern
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
CSO Combined Sewer Overflows
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
GDL Gary Development Landfill
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IRAC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ISBH Indiana State Board of Health
ISDH Indiana State Department of Health
NIPSCO Northern Indiana Public Service Company
NPL National Priorities List
NRS Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVOC Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
USDA US Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tanks
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
3
Summary
INTRODUCTION Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located in Gary Lake County Indiana was approved by the state in 1975 for operation primarily as a private sanitary landfill Although not permitted to do so records indicate that the landfill began accepting hazardous substances and wastes containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides shortly thereafter Large quantities of hazardous wastes were landfilled on this 62 acre property by the time the landfill was closed in 1989 In 1995 14 vents were installed by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) to collect methane gas for reuse however neither a collection system nor flares were ever installed The landfill is still owned by a private company Although some buildings remain on the landfill no activities are currently taking place anywhere on the landfill
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances Further there are hundreds of other point and nonpoint pollution sources within two miles The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL and the Grand Calumet River is on the southern border
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from GDL because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit on July 22 2011 with the US EPA the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the City of Gary ATSDR reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
Although this report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options future uses of GDL could offer opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas Although complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL ATSDR could provide another review of GDL if uses or other conditions change
i
CONCLUSION 1
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish over many years from areas where there is a fish and swimming advisory could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represents a public health hazard to people consuming those fish
ATSDR also concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
Leachate continues to discharge from the Gary Development Landfill (GDL) With no collection system in place those discharges run off into the Grand Calumet River Additionally past inspections (while in operation) revealed that contaminated waters (eg runoff leachate) were being discharged into the river
The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs (including PCBs) heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead and pesticides Those waterways are also impacted by conventional pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediment is as great as 20 feet deep The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Watersrdquo ldquoYou should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 2002
People could be exposed to contaminants in the Grand Calumet River (from GDL and many other nearby pollution sources) if they violate the advisory and eat the contaminated fish or contact the contaminated sediments
A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment of recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region showed that 70 of the 97 participants reported that they fish at least occasionally for consumption and 45 said that they usually eat the fish they catch (including in the advisory areas) The assessment showed notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups (ie Whites Blacks and Latinos) The angler assessment
concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk
information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish
ii
NEXT STEPS
pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) ranged from moderate (less than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mgkg) to high (27 mgkg) depending on the location and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels People including children who ate fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
ISDH and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
CONCLUSION 2
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
NEXT STEPS
ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on GDL pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus can harm peoplersquos health
Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and difficult to walk around due to overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill At times a spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
ATSDR recommends posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others
CONCLUSION 3
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils wetland sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to impact peoplersquos health but people are not coming into contact with them
The main road into the landfill is blocked off by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Although people can access the landfill from several perimeter roads on foot during the growing season the landfill is mostly overgrown It is difficult to walk around or reach
iii
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
HEALTH CONSULTATION
GARY DEVELOPMENT LANDFILL
GARY LAKE COUNTY INDIANA
Prepared By
US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Table of Contents
Summary ishy
Statement of Issues 1shy
Site Description 1shy
Background 2shy
Discussion 3shy
Wastes Disposed 3shy
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards 3shy
Onsite 3shy
SoilSediment 3shy
Groundwater 4shy
Landfill Cover 4shy
Methane Vents 4shy
Offsite 4shy
Grand Calumet River 5shy
Nearby waste sites 6shy
Public Health Implications 7shy
Non-cancer health effects 8shy
Cancer health effects 8shy
Summary 9shy
Community Concerns 9shy
Future Uses of GDL 9shy
Conclusions 10shy
Recommendations 10shy
Prepared By11shy
Reviewed By11shy
References 12shy
1
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana F1shyFigure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River
from site visit July 2011 F2shyFigure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples F5shyFigure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill F8shyFigure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9 F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill F11shyFigure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976 F12shyFigure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor
Canal F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development
Landfill T1
Table 2 Background Concentration Table T4
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development Landfill T5
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison T6
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg) T7
2
Acronyms
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AOC Area of Concern
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
CSO Combined Sewer Overflows
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
GDL Gary Development Landfill
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IRAC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ISBH Indiana State Board of Health
ISDH Indiana State Department of Health
NIPSCO Northern Indiana Public Service Company
NPL National Priorities List
NRS Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVOC Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
USDA US Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tanks
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
3
Summary
INTRODUCTION Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located in Gary Lake County Indiana was approved by the state in 1975 for operation primarily as a private sanitary landfill Although not permitted to do so records indicate that the landfill began accepting hazardous substances and wastes containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides shortly thereafter Large quantities of hazardous wastes were landfilled on this 62 acre property by the time the landfill was closed in 1989 In 1995 14 vents were installed by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) to collect methane gas for reuse however neither a collection system nor flares were ever installed The landfill is still owned by a private company Although some buildings remain on the landfill no activities are currently taking place anywhere on the landfill
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances Further there are hundreds of other point and nonpoint pollution sources within two miles The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL and the Grand Calumet River is on the southern border
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from GDL because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit on July 22 2011 with the US EPA the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the City of Gary ATSDR reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
Although this report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options future uses of GDL could offer opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas Although complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL ATSDR could provide another review of GDL if uses or other conditions change
i
CONCLUSION 1
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish over many years from areas where there is a fish and swimming advisory could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represents a public health hazard to people consuming those fish
ATSDR also concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
Leachate continues to discharge from the Gary Development Landfill (GDL) With no collection system in place those discharges run off into the Grand Calumet River Additionally past inspections (while in operation) revealed that contaminated waters (eg runoff leachate) were being discharged into the river
The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs (including PCBs) heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead and pesticides Those waterways are also impacted by conventional pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediment is as great as 20 feet deep The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Watersrdquo ldquoYou should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 2002
People could be exposed to contaminants in the Grand Calumet River (from GDL and many other nearby pollution sources) if they violate the advisory and eat the contaminated fish or contact the contaminated sediments
A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment of recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region showed that 70 of the 97 participants reported that they fish at least occasionally for consumption and 45 said that they usually eat the fish they catch (including in the advisory areas) The assessment showed notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups (ie Whites Blacks and Latinos) The angler assessment
concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk
information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish
ii
NEXT STEPS
pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) ranged from moderate (less than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mgkg) to high (27 mgkg) depending on the location and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels People including children who ate fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
ISDH and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
CONCLUSION 2
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
NEXT STEPS
ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on GDL pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus can harm peoplersquos health
Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and difficult to walk around due to overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill At times a spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
ATSDR recommends posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others
CONCLUSION 3
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils wetland sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to impact peoplersquos health but people are not coming into contact with them
The main road into the landfill is blocked off by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Although people can access the landfill from several perimeter roads on foot during the growing season the landfill is mostly overgrown It is difficult to walk around or reach
iii
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Table of Contents
Summary ishy
Statement of Issues 1shy
Site Description 1shy
Background 2shy
Discussion 3shy
Wastes Disposed 3shy
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards 3shy
Onsite 3shy
SoilSediment 3shy
Groundwater 4shy
Landfill Cover 4shy
Methane Vents 4shy
Offsite 4shy
Grand Calumet River 5shy
Nearby waste sites 6shy
Public Health Implications 7shy
Non-cancer health effects 8shy
Cancer health effects 8shy
Summary 9shy
Community Concerns 9shy
Future Uses of GDL 9shy
Conclusions 10shy
Recommendations 10shy
Prepared By11shy
Reviewed By11shy
References 12shy
1
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana F1shyFigure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River
from site visit July 2011 F2shyFigure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples F5shyFigure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill F8shyFigure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9 F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill F11shyFigure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976 F12shyFigure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor
Canal F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development
Landfill T1
Table 2 Background Concentration Table T4
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development Landfill T5
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison T6
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg) T7
2
Acronyms
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AOC Area of Concern
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
CSO Combined Sewer Overflows
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
GDL Gary Development Landfill
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IRAC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ISBH Indiana State Board of Health
ISDH Indiana State Department of Health
NIPSCO Northern Indiana Public Service Company
NPL National Priorities List
NRS Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVOC Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
USDA US Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tanks
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
3
Summary
INTRODUCTION Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located in Gary Lake County Indiana was approved by the state in 1975 for operation primarily as a private sanitary landfill Although not permitted to do so records indicate that the landfill began accepting hazardous substances and wastes containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides shortly thereafter Large quantities of hazardous wastes were landfilled on this 62 acre property by the time the landfill was closed in 1989 In 1995 14 vents were installed by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) to collect methane gas for reuse however neither a collection system nor flares were ever installed The landfill is still owned by a private company Although some buildings remain on the landfill no activities are currently taking place anywhere on the landfill
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances Further there are hundreds of other point and nonpoint pollution sources within two miles The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL and the Grand Calumet River is on the southern border
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from GDL because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit on July 22 2011 with the US EPA the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the City of Gary ATSDR reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
Although this report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options future uses of GDL could offer opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas Although complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL ATSDR could provide another review of GDL if uses or other conditions change
i
CONCLUSION 1
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish over many years from areas where there is a fish and swimming advisory could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represents a public health hazard to people consuming those fish
ATSDR also concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
Leachate continues to discharge from the Gary Development Landfill (GDL) With no collection system in place those discharges run off into the Grand Calumet River Additionally past inspections (while in operation) revealed that contaminated waters (eg runoff leachate) were being discharged into the river
The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs (including PCBs) heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead and pesticides Those waterways are also impacted by conventional pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediment is as great as 20 feet deep The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Watersrdquo ldquoYou should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 2002
People could be exposed to contaminants in the Grand Calumet River (from GDL and many other nearby pollution sources) if they violate the advisory and eat the contaminated fish or contact the contaminated sediments
A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment of recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region showed that 70 of the 97 participants reported that they fish at least occasionally for consumption and 45 said that they usually eat the fish they catch (including in the advisory areas) The assessment showed notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups (ie Whites Blacks and Latinos) The angler assessment
concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk
information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish
ii
NEXT STEPS
pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) ranged from moderate (less than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mgkg) to high (27 mgkg) depending on the location and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels People including children who ate fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
ISDH and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
CONCLUSION 2
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
NEXT STEPS
ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on GDL pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus can harm peoplersquos health
Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and difficult to walk around due to overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill At times a spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
ATSDR recommends posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others
CONCLUSION 3
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils wetland sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to impact peoplersquos health but people are not coming into contact with them
The main road into the landfill is blocked off by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Although people can access the landfill from several perimeter roads on foot during the growing season the landfill is mostly overgrown It is difficult to walk around or reach
iii
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana F1shyFigure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River
from site visit July 2011 F2shyFigure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples F5shyFigure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill F8shyFigure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9 F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill F11shyFigure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976 F12shyFigure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor
Canal F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development
Landfill T1
Table 2 Background Concentration Table T4
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development Landfill T5
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison T6
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg) T7
2
Acronyms
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AOC Area of Concern
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
CSO Combined Sewer Overflows
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
GDL Gary Development Landfill
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IRAC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ISBH Indiana State Board of Health
ISDH Indiana State Department of Health
NIPSCO Northern Indiana Public Service Company
NPL National Priorities List
NRS Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVOC Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
USDA US Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tanks
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
3
Summary
INTRODUCTION Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located in Gary Lake County Indiana was approved by the state in 1975 for operation primarily as a private sanitary landfill Although not permitted to do so records indicate that the landfill began accepting hazardous substances and wastes containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides shortly thereafter Large quantities of hazardous wastes were landfilled on this 62 acre property by the time the landfill was closed in 1989 In 1995 14 vents were installed by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) to collect methane gas for reuse however neither a collection system nor flares were ever installed The landfill is still owned by a private company Although some buildings remain on the landfill no activities are currently taking place anywhere on the landfill
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances Further there are hundreds of other point and nonpoint pollution sources within two miles The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL and the Grand Calumet River is on the southern border
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from GDL because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit on July 22 2011 with the US EPA the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the City of Gary ATSDR reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
Although this report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options future uses of GDL could offer opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas Although complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL ATSDR could provide another review of GDL if uses or other conditions change
i
CONCLUSION 1
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish over many years from areas where there is a fish and swimming advisory could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represents a public health hazard to people consuming those fish
ATSDR also concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
Leachate continues to discharge from the Gary Development Landfill (GDL) With no collection system in place those discharges run off into the Grand Calumet River Additionally past inspections (while in operation) revealed that contaminated waters (eg runoff leachate) were being discharged into the river
The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs (including PCBs) heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead and pesticides Those waterways are also impacted by conventional pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediment is as great as 20 feet deep The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Watersrdquo ldquoYou should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 2002
People could be exposed to contaminants in the Grand Calumet River (from GDL and many other nearby pollution sources) if they violate the advisory and eat the contaminated fish or contact the contaminated sediments
A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment of recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region showed that 70 of the 97 participants reported that they fish at least occasionally for consumption and 45 said that they usually eat the fish they catch (including in the advisory areas) The assessment showed notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups (ie Whites Blacks and Latinos) The angler assessment
concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk
information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish
ii
NEXT STEPS
pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) ranged from moderate (less than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mgkg) to high (27 mgkg) depending on the location and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels People including children who ate fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
ISDH and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
CONCLUSION 2
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
NEXT STEPS
ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on GDL pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus can harm peoplersquos health
Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and difficult to walk around due to overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill At times a spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
ATSDR recommends posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others
CONCLUSION 3
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils wetland sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to impact peoplersquos health but people are not coming into contact with them
The main road into the landfill is blocked off by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Although people can access the landfill from several perimeter roads on foot during the growing season the landfill is mostly overgrown It is difficult to walk around or reach
iii
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Acronyms
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AOC Area of Concern
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
CSO Combined Sewer Overflows
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
GDL Gary Development Landfill
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IRAC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ISBH Indiana State Board of Health
ISDH Indiana State Department of Health
NIPSCO Northern Indiana Public Service Company
NPL National Priorities List
NRS Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SVOC Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
USDA US Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tanks
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
3
Summary
INTRODUCTION Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located in Gary Lake County Indiana was approved by the state in 1975 for operation primarily as a private sanitary landfill Although not permitted to do so records indicate that the landfill began accepting hazardous substances and wastes containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides shortly thereafter Large quantities of hazardous wastes were landfilled on this 62 acre property by the time the landfill was closed in 1989 In 1995 14 vents were installed by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) to collect methane gas for reuse however neither a collection system nor flares were ever installed The landfill is still owned by a private company Although some buildings remain on the landfill no activities are currently taking place anywhere on the landfill
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances Further there are hundreds of other point and nonpoint pollution sources within two miles The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL and the Grand Calumet River is on the southern border
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from GDL because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit on July 22 2011 with the US EPA the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the City of Gary ATSDR reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
Although this report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options future uses of GDL could offer opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas Although complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL ATSDR could provide another review of GDL if uses or other conditions change
i
CONCLUSION 1
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish over many years from areas where there is a fish and swimming advisory could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represents a public health hazard to people consuming those fish
ATSDR also concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
Leachate continues to discharge from the Gary Development Landfill (GDL) With no collection system in place those discharges run off into the Grand Calumet River Additionally past inspections (while in operation) revealed that contaminated waters (eg runoff leachate) were being discharged into the river
The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs (including PCBs) heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead and pesticides Those waterways are also impacted by conventional pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediment is as great as 20 feet deep The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Watersrdquo ldquoYou should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 2002
People could be exposed to contaminants in the Grand Calumet River (from GDL and many other nearby pollution sources) if they violate the advisory and eat the contaminated fish or contact the contaminated sediments
A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment of recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region showed that 70 of the 97 participants reported that they fish at least occasionally for consumption and 45 said that they usually eat the fish they catch (including in the advisory areas) The assessment showed notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups (ie Whites Blacks and Latinos) The angler assessment
concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk
information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish
ii
NEXT STEPS
pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) ranged from moderate (less than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mgkg) to high (27 mgkg) depending on the location and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels People including children who ate fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
ISDH and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
CONCLUSION 2
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
NEXT STEPS
ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on GDL pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus can harm peoplersquos health
Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and difficult to walk around due to overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill At times a spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
ATSDR recommends posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others
CONCLUSION 3
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils wetland sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to impact peoplersquos health but people are not coming into contact with them
The main road into the landfill is blocked off by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Although people can access the landfill from several perimeter roads on foot during the growing season the landfill is mostly overgrown It is difficult to walk around or reach
iii
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Summary
INTRODUCTION Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located in Gary Lake County Indiana was approved by the state in 1975 for operation primarily as a private sanitary landfill Although not permitted to do so records indicate that the landfill began accepting hazardous substances and wastes containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides shortly thereafter Large quantities of hazardous wastes were landfilled on this 62 acre property by the time the landfill was closed in 1989 In 1995 14 vents were installed by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) to collect methane gas for reuse however neither a collection system nor flares were ever installed The landfill is still owned by a private company Although some buildings remain on the landfill no activities are currently taking place anywhere on the landfill
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances Further there are hundreds of other point and nonpoint pollution sources within two miles The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL and the Grand Calumet River is on the southern border
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from GDL because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit on July 22 2011 with the US EPA the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the City of Gary ATSDR reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
Although this report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options future uses of GDL could offer opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas Although complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL ATSDR could provide another review of GDL if uses or other conditions change
i
CONCLUSION 1
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish over many years from areas where there is a fish and swimming advisory could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represents a public health hazard to people consuming those fish
ATSDR also concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
Leachate continues to discharge from the Gary Development Landfill (GDL) With no collection system in place those discharges run off into the Grand Calumet River Additionally past inspections (while in operation) revealed that contaminated waters (eg runoff leachate) were being discharged into the river
The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs (including PCBs) heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead and pesticides Those waterways are also impacted by conventional pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediment is as great as 20 feet deep The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Watersrdquo ldquoYou should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 2002
People could be exposed to contaminants in the Grand Calumet River (from GDL and many other nearby pollution sources) if they violate the advisory and eat the contaminated fish or contact the contaminated sediments
A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment of recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region showed that 70 of the 97 participants reported that they fish at least occasionally for consumption and 45 said that they usually eat the fish they catch (including in the advisory areas) The assessment showed notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups (ie Whites Blacks and Latinos) The angler assessment
concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk
information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish
ii
NEXT STEPS
pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) ranged from moderate (less than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mgkg) to high (27 mgkg) depending on the location and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels People including children who ate fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
ISDH and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
CONCLUSION 2
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
NEXT STEPS
ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on GDL pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus can harm peoplersquos health
Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and difficult to walk around due to overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill At times a spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
ATSDR recommends posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others
CONCLUSION 3
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils wetland sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to impact peoplersquos health but people are not coming into contact with them
The main road into the landfill is blocked off by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Although people can access the landfill from several perimeter roads on foot during the growing season the landfill is mostly overgrown It is difficult to walk around or reach
iii
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
CONCLUSION 1
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish over many years from areas where there is a fish and swimming advisory could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represents a public health hazard to people consuming those fish
ATSDR also concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
Leachate continues to discharge from the Gary Development Landfill (GDL) With no collection system in place those discharges run off into the Grand Calumet River Additionally past inspections (while in operation) revealed that contaminated waters (eg runoff leachate) were being discharged into the river
The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs (including PCBs) heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead and pesticides Those waterways are also impacted by conventional pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediment is as great as 20 feet deep The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Watersrdquo ldquoYou should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 2002
People could be exposed to contaminants in the Grand Calumet River (from GDL and many other nearby pollution sources) if they violate the advisory and eat the contaminated fish or contact the contaminated sediments
A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment of recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region showed that 70 of the 97 participants reported that they fish at least occasionally for consumption and 45 said that they usually eat the fish they catch (including in the advisory areas) The assessment showed notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups (ie Whites Blacks and Latinos) The angler assessment
concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk
information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish
ii
NEXT STEPS
pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) ranged from moderate (less than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mgkg) to high (27 mgkg) depending on the location and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels People including children who ate fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
ISDH and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
CONCLUSION 2
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
NEXT STEPS
ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on GDL pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus can harm peoplersquos health
Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and difficult to walk around due to overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill At times a spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
ATSDR recommends posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others
CONCLUSION 3
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils wetland sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to impact peoplersquos health but people are not coming into contact with them
The main road into the landfill is blocked off by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Although people can access the landfill from several perimeter roads on foot during the growing season the landfill is mostly overgrown It is difficult to walk around or reach
iii
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
NEXT STEPS
pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) ranged from moderate (less than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mgkg) to high (27 mgkg) depending on the location and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels People including children who ate fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
ISDH and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
CONCLUSION 2
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
NEXT STEPS
ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on GDL pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus can harm peoplersquos health
Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and difficult to walk around due to overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill At times a spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
ATSDR recommends posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others
CONCLUSION 3
BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION
ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils wetland sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to impact peoplersquos health but people are not coming into contact with them
The main road into the landfill is blocked off by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Although people can access the landfill from several perimeter roads on foot during the growing season the landfill is mostly overgrown It is difficult to walk around or reach
iii
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
NEXT STEPS
FOR MORE
INFORMATION
some of the known sources of surface contamination (eg leachate outfall) In July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing or four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry Further GDL is in a primarily industrial area with the nearest residential area across the river and more than a mile upstream
ATSDR recommends EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
If use of GDL changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of contamination and that a re-evaluation of the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants be conducted
If you have additional concerns about your health please call ATSDR at 1shy800-CDC-INFO and ask for information on the Gary Development Landfill site
iv
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Statement of Issues
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated the possible health impact of exposure to contaminants originating from Gary Development Landfill (GDL) Gary Lake County Indiana because it was recently proposed (March 2011) for the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPArsquos) National Priorities List (NPL) ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit in July 2011 reviewed information on the wastes received by GDL the limited onsite sampling data summary information from surrounding contaminated areas and sediment and fish data for the Grand Calumet River This consultation summarizes the findings of ATSDRrsquos evaluation
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options Future uses of GDL could provide opportunities for economic development andor further preservation of the Calumet regionrsquos natural areas The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL If uses or conditions change an additional review of GDL should be requested
Site Description
The Gary Development Landfill (GDL) located at 479 Cline Avenue in Gary Indiana is the site of a 62 acre landfill that operated from approximately 1975 to 1989 This privately owned former landfill is in a primarily industrial area and has a wetland on the southeastern portion of the property The Grand Calumet River forms the southern border of the landfill (Figure 1) [EPA 2011a]
In July 2011 ATSDR staff conducted a site scoping visit at the Gary Development Landfill Other participants included the US EPA Remedial Project Manager David Linnear the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Remedial Services Branch Senior Technical Advisor Mike Sickels and the City of Gary Environmental Coordinator Dorreen Carey
The main road into the landfill was blocked by large concrete barriers making driving cars or trucks onto the landfill difficult Several open-air buildings remain on the landfill however no activities are taking place on the property Because the landfill is not fenced people can access the landfill on foot from several perimeter roads However in July 2011 there were no signs of trespassing such as debris fire pits or signs of recent four wheel drive or other recreation vehicle (eg motorcycle) entry
Walking the western and southern perimeters of the landfill we observed the drainage outfall to the Grand Calumet River and inspected one of the methane vents Although we did not see any deer there were signs that large numbers of deer inhabit the landfill (ie deer beds deer tracks) Hunting is not permitted on the landfill or in the surrounding areas The landfill was completely overgrown with phragmites and various other weeds (Figure 2) The nearest residential area is across the river and more than a mile upstream
GDL is bordered by five other properties and within a 2 mile area are 12 sites (EPA state lead local lead etc) that are considered sources of hazardous substances [EPA 2011b] (Figure 3) Numerous nature preserves andor natural areas are also in the area (Figure 4) The Gary Airport is adjacent to GDL
1
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Background
GDL was approved by the state for construction as a sanitary landfill in 1973 Previously the property was a mined-out water-filled sand pit GDL received their operating permit in 1975 [IDEM 1992]
Several times in 1975 the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) visited the landfill and ordered the GDL to stop accepting unauthorized hazardous waste to install monitoring wells and to improve the cover of the landfill [ISBH 1976] Additionally in 1976 ISBH visited the landfill to inform the operators that they were discharging water (ie leachate) to the Grand Calumet River in violation of their permit A waterleachate sample revealed that it contained ldquosignificant amountsrdquo of heavy metals and oils A violation letter was sent to GDL about the leachate discharge lack of adequate cover on the landfill and the need for monitoring wells [ISBH 1976]
According to records reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)1 GDL began accepting (listed) hazardous waste for disposal in 1980 IDEM inspections and notices of violation continued for several years Groundwater samples taken in 1984 and 1985 showed numerous analyte concentrations above the primary and secondary drinking water standards [ISBH 1986] Throughout its history of operation GDL neither achieved interim status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2 nor obtained a RCRA permit [USEPA 2011b]
According to hazardous waste manifests of waste sent to GDL for disposal the landfill accepted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) asbestos metals and pesticides [USEPA 2011b] GDL ceased operations and stopped accepting waste on August 31 1989
In 1992 during a periodic inspection IDEM staff identified several abandoned drums As a result the US EPA conducted a Time Critical Removal Action at GDL removing numerous containers (eg oils paint insecticides antifreeze and electrical capacitors) [USEPA 2011b]
In 1995 the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) installed 14 methane gas collection system vents with the goal of collecting the methane gas NIPSCO did not complete the project and the vents remain [IDEM 2000]
In 1997 GDL entered into a Consent Decree and paid $86000 in fines and put $40000 in a trust established to fund closure and post closure care activities groundwater quality assessment and remediation of contamination andor the prevention of release of hazardous substances from the site [USEPA 2011b] No closure or post closure care activities have taken place
1 The Indiana State Board of Health was the predecessor to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management 2
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the
cradle-to-grave This includes the generation transportation treatment storage and disposal of hazardous
waste RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes
httpwwwepagovregulationslawsrcrahtml
2
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
On March 10 2011 GDL was proposed to the US EPArsquos National Priorities List (NPL) the list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup According to the Hazard Ranking record hazardous substances have been found in the 283 acre wetland which includes habitats known to be used by numerous state endangered species [EPA 2011b] GDL ranked for the NPL primarily on the environmental threat posed by migration of contaminated surface water into nearby waterways [EPA 2011b]
Discussion
Wastes Disposed
Over the course of its operation GDL received a large variety and volume of wastes in solid and liquid form that contained organic and inorganic compounds During the 1975 to 1977 timeframe GDL received permission from the state to accept special wastes in specified volumes [USEPA 1983] Other wastes sent to GDL were listed on hazardous waste manifests from the generators [IDEM 2010] For example tank bottom sludges were sent to GDL containing SVOCs such as acenapththene Paint sludges possibly containing VOCs such as benzene were also shipped to GDL as well as fly ash and foundry sand likely containing heavy metals such as arsenic lead and cadmium Table 1 provides a summary of both the special and listed wastes sent to GDL the estimated quantity shipped and the possible hazardous substances associated with those wastes
Environmental Samples and Other Hazards
From the time GDL began operations the state inspectors identified problems with the type of wastes being accepted They also recognized GDLrsquos improper disposal resulting from the lack of adequate cover and an operational leachate collection system [ISBH 1976] Although few samples were collected historically ISBH reported that water and leachate samples showed ldquoheavy metals and oilsrdquo [ISBH 1976 - no data were available] Since the late 1970s and early 1980s limited sampling has taken place including sampling for the proposed listing of GDL to US EPArsquos NPL Below is a summary of the available data
Onsite
SoilSediment
Samples were collected in May 2009 by IDEM to determine whether GDL should be placed on the NPL A total of 20 soilsediment samples were collected at 0-12 inches (ldquo) and 12-24rdquo depths on and off-site Many of the on-site samples were taken in the wetland portion of the landfill nearest to the Grand Calumet River (Figures 5 amp 6 (ldquoQQrdquo samples are upstream off-site)) Table 2 lists the background concentrations On-site metals chromium iron lead and zinc were detected above background levels (0-12rdquo) (Table 3) Chromium levels are shown in Figure 7 The SVOCs acenaphthene anthracene benzo(a)anthracene benzo(a)pyrene benzo(b)fluoranthene benzo(ghi)perylene benzo(k)fluoranthene chrysene dibenzofuran fluoranthene indeno(123shycd)pyrene phenanthrene and pyrene have been detected in soils and sediments (12-24rdquo) at levels above the regional concentrations Table 4 lists the maximum SVOC onsite concentrations and the background comparisons (Sample E2QS2 can also be seen on Figure 8) Figure 9 is a picture of the landfill and the sampled sedimentsoils Pesticides including delta-BHC (deltashyhexachlorocyclohexane) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected (12-24rdquo) On and off-site concentrations are shown in Figures 10 amp 11 (ldquoQQrdquosamples are upstream off-site)
3
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Although the metals and SVOC soilsediment concentrations are moderate to very high they will not likely harm peoplersquos health because there is no indication that people have been exposed to them onsite (ie accidently ingesting)
Groundwater
According to the ISBH reports observations made in 1976 showed the groundwater table was two feet below ground surface Samples taken from six monitoring wells in 1976 (Figure 12) found the following chemicals above federal drinking water standards chromium (in wells 1 2 5 6) lead (in wells 1 5 6) cadmium (in wells 1 2 3) arsenic (in well 5) and fluoride (in wells 2 4 5) Barium selenium silver mercury iron and copper were reported to have been detected at levels the drinking water standards No actual data were available [USEPA 1983]
In 2011 an IDEM geologist reported that it is likely that surface recharge (ie precipitation and runoff) due to the lack of an impermeable cap on the landfill and groundwater flow through the landfilled wastes transports the contaminants from the landfill to the adjacent wetlands and to the Grand Calumet River [IDEM 2011] Because of this hydraulic connection and the size of the landfill completely stopping leachate from reaching the Grand Calumet River is difficult
Groundwater ingestion is not a likely route of exposure at this site because people are not using groundwater in the area as drinking water Contact with the Grand Calumet River and the other local sources are possible dermal and incidental ingestion routes of exposure to contaminated water (see information on Grand Calumet River below)
Landfill Cover
According to reports by ISBH flyash was used for daily cover although the permit required the cover be restricted to clay No samples were taken of the flyash however it is possible that it contained several heavy metals such as arsenic cadmium and lead During the July 2011 site visit the landfill was overgrown with brush If the brush dies back the ash could become exposed and made more mobile especially on windy days Additionally runoff carrying the ash into the wetland areas of the landfill or the Grand Calumet River could further contribute to contamination in sediments and fish
Methane Vents
There are 14 methane vents throughout the landfill According to IDEM staff the venting gasses have set off their portable explosimeters at times Methane is explosive even at low concentrations in air (5 to 15 methane) [ATSDR 2001] Although the landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning trespassers and others of the explosive hazards of the landfill gases A spark from an engine cigarette or another ignition source near the methane vents might cause a fire or explosion
Offsite
Little data was available for GDL Many other point and nonpoint pollution sources are within two miles of GDL Therefore ATSDR reviewed data and information from nearby pollution sources collected by other agencies and groups to put the GDL contamination into context with the surrounding area and how people could be exposed to other sources of contamination
4
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Grand Calumet River
The Grand Calumet River originating in the east end of Gary Indiana flows 13 miles through the heavily industrialized cities of Gary East Chicago and Hammond Runoff from GDL flows into the Grand Calumet River The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal are contaminated with SVOCs pesticides and heavy metals such as mercury cadmium chromium and lead Those waterways are also impacted by conventional run-off pollutants (eg phosphorus nitrogen iron magnesium volatile solids oil and grease) In some areas the contamination in sediments was found at depths down to 20 feet [EPA 2011c]
Sediment Surficial sediment samples taken in the Grand Calumet River and Indian Harbor Canal between 1987 and 1999 by the US Army Corps of Engineers IDEM and others showed that many of the SVOC concentrations were the same order of magnitude of those found at GDL while the pesticide concentrations were much higher in the river sediments (Table 4) [FWS 2003b]
Fish Whole fish and fillets (skin onscales off) samples taken in the river and harbor in the 1980s and 1990s found mercury pesticides (chlordane dieldrin DDD DDE DDT) and PCBs The fillet samples found mercury as high as 27 microgkg chlordane 133 microgkg dieldrin 210microgkg DDD 290microgkg DDE 1300microgkg DDT 1500microgkg and PCBs 27000 microgkg [FWS 2003b]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set residue tolerance limits of 2000 microgkg (2 mgkg) for PCBs in edible portions of fish [FDA 2011] The tolerance level is used to decide whether to issue local advisories to consumers recommending limits on consumption of all or certain species of locally harvested fish or to close waters for commercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish [FDA 2011]
The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) currently has a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River which warns against the consumption of any fish [ISDH 2010] Although limited signage along the river reads ldquoWarning Unsafe Waters You should not swim in or eat fish caught from these watersrdquo Fishing has been restricted at least in part in the Grand Calumet River since 1986 [FWS 2003a]
Angler appraisal Between May and November 2002 and March and July 2003 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change conducted research on recreational fishing in the industrialized Calumet region of northwest Indiana and southeast Chicago to gage the extent of fishing for consumption and to learn about perceptions of the risks of eating contaminated fish Below are some of the findings of that research [Westphal et al 2008]
Angler Fish Consumption
bull Of the 97 study participants who provided definitive information about their fish consumption habits 70 reported ever eating fish from Calumet waters
bull There was a strong tendency ndash among both fish eaters and noneaters ndash to give away unwanted caught fish (either surplus fish or species they did not want) to others
bull There were notable differences in fish consumption patterns among the three groups About 93 of Blacks 78 of Latinos and 57 of Whites reported at least occasionally fishing for consumption in Calumet 68 of Blacks 50 of Latinos but
5
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
only 20 of Whites said that they usually fished for consumption[Participants could choose more than one answer so the percentages do not add up to 100]
bull Anglers talked about sharing fish with friends and family as one of the social aspects of fishing as part of being a good neighbor andor as part of being a good provider For example 14 participants had held summer fish fries with family and friends
Assessing Pollution
bull When assessing pollution anglers relied mainly on their senses personal experiences judgment andor information from friends family and other anglers rather than on written fishing guides local officials or the media
bull When considering consumption risks they focused on four primary factors the general environment water quality fish characteristics and observable human health
bull Anglers felt that more fish species meant that it was safer to eat fish caught at that location because water quality was good
bull Carp and catfish were mentioned most frequently as species to avoid but the response to catfish and carp varied across ethnic groups About half of the black anglers who discussed carp said they did eat carp when they caught them
bull People who chose to eat Calumet fish generally identified bacteria or contamination with other infectious agents as a possible negative consequence of fish consumption but were generally not aware of the threat of bioaccumulated chemicals
Communication
bull Existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information are failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community
bull Black and Latino anglers in this study were much more likely than Whites to be consuming local fish to be consuming fish species named in advisories (such as catfish and carp) and to be consuming fish from specific water bodies named in advisories
The paper offered several suggestions for disseminating risk information to diverse urban populations such as outreach through new channels providing information aimed at minimizing risk through selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats For example new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices [Westphal et al 2008]
Nearby waste sites
GDL is bordered by five other properties that are considered sources of hazardous substances (Figure 3) Many other contaminated areas are near GDL and may also impact the Grand Calumet River EPA has summarized the contamination in the Area of Concern (AOC) (Figure 13-GDL is approximated here) as follows [Excepted from USEPA 2011c]
Nonpoint Sources
6
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
bull CERCLA Sites ndash There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
bull Hazardous Waste Sites under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ndash There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under RCRA such as landfills or surface impoundments where hazardous waste is disposed Twenty-two of these sites are treatment storage and disposal facilities
bull Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ndash There are more than 460 USTs in the AOC More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid-1987
bull Industrial Waste Site Runoff ndash Storm water runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC located within 02 miles of the river are degrading AOC water quality Contaminants include oil heavy metals arsenic PCBs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead
bull Atmospheric Deposition ndash Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land Toxins from this source include dioxins PCBs insecticides and heavy metals
bull Urban Runoff ndash Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters
bull Contaminated Groundwater ndash Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters US EPA estimates that at least 168 million gallons of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC
Point sources
bull Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharges ndash Three steel manufacturers contribute 90 of industrial point source discharges to the AOC One chemical manufacturer discharges into the AOC Permitted discharges include arsenic cadmium cyanide copper chromium lead and mercury Three municipal wastewater treatment works (Gary Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the AOC
bull Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) ndash Fifteen CSOs contribute untreated municipal waste including conventional and toxic pollutants to the AOC Annually CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons (416 billion liters) of raw wastewater into the harbor and river Approximately 57 of the annual CSO volume is discharged within eight miles of Lake Michigan resulting in near shore fecal coliform contamination
Public Health Implications
The most plausible exposures would be the ingestion of sediments (while swimming) or fish from the advisory areas of the Grand Calumet River due to the ease of access to and high levels of contamination The PCB contaminant levels in fish tested (ie carp catfish goldfish pumpkinseed white sucker and sunfish) could be moderately (less than 2 mgkg to significantly
high (at least 27 mgkg 27000 microgkg) depending on the location type of fish and portion
7
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
consumed Surficial sediment PCB levels (total) were as high as 4000 mgkg (4170731 microgkg) and individual SVOC levels were more than 25000 mgkg (25000000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] Although there is a full fish consumption advisory for the Grand Calumet River one study indicated that people are not following the advisory [Westphal et al 2008]
Non-cancer health effects
Studies of non-cancer health effects of exposure to PCBs and PCB-like compounds have shown variable conclusions Evaluation of the health effects of PCB mixtures is complicated by their congeneric composition since ultimately the toxicity of the mixture is due to the toxicity of the individual congeners their interactions and the interactions with other structurally related chemicals such as chlorinated dibenzofurans and dioxins Additionally commercial PCBs have been reported to have lot-to-lot differences in the congener distribution which could contribute to some variations in toxicity observed among studies
Recent studies have shown an association between PCB exposure and developmental (ie enamel defects on teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects The following are findings from some recent studies
A study of 432 Slovenian children 8ndash9 years of age evaluated for long-term exposure to PCBs showed a relationship between PCB exposure and developmental enamel defects of permanent teeth in children [Jan et al 2007]
Another study examined 118 pregnant women age 25ndash34 years of age for the association between transplacental exposure to dioxinsPCBs and thyroid and growth hormones in newborns The findings showed that utero exposure to (non-ortho) PCBs may alter the free T4 (FT4) feedback to the hypothalamus and differences in compositions and levels of exposure to PCBs might result in different health effects [Wang et al 2005]
Studies of diabetes have shown some associations with PCB exposure Serum from 196 men (median age 60 years) and 184 women (median age 64 years) was measured for PCB 153 concentrations in Swedish fishermen and their wives Elevated PCB-153 serum concentrations were significantly associated with diabetes mellitus type 2 prevalence even after adjustment for confounding variables [Rylander et al 2005] Similarly others have reported associations between incidences of type 2 diabetes mellitus and exposure to PCBs [Vasiliu et al 2006 Chen et al 2008 Codru et al 2007 and Wang et al 2005]
Cancer health effects
Information on cancer health effects of PCBs is available primarily from animal studies In rat studies rats that ate commercial PCB mixtures (ie very high PCB levels) throughout their lives developed liver cancer [ATSDR 2000] The findings of human studies however are not as obvious Many of the human studies involve worker populations Worker studies of people who worked with PCBs showed evidence that PCB exposure may be associated with certain types of cancer in humans such as cancer of the liver and biliary tract [ATSDR 2000]
Based on the evidence for cancer in animals the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has stated that PCBs may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have determined that PCBs are
8
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
probably carcinogenic to humans (inadequate human data sufficient animal studies) [ATSDR 2000]
The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) for PCBs is 04 mgkg (400 microgkg) CREG values are used by ATSDR to screen sampling data to determine whether additional evaluation is needed CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one theoretical excess cancer case in a million (10-6) in persons similarly exposed during their lifetime (70 years) The highest fish tissue sample from the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal showed a PCB (total) concentration of 27 mgkg (27000 microgkg) [FWS 2003b] which is more than 67 times higher than the screening level
Summary
Figure 14 shows the range of concentrations detected in fish above 2 mgkg (2000 microgkg) by year and type of fish A large number of the fish sampled from the Grand Calumet River had elevated PCB levels The results of an angler study conducted from 2002-2003 indicates that people are not following the fish consumption advisory in the Grand Calumet River People including children who eat fish from these areas over many years are at greater risk for developmental (ie enamel defects on permanent teeth) and endocrine (ie thyroid and diabetes) effects as well as an increased risk of developing cancer from this PCB exposure
Community Concerns
In late July 2011 the EPA community involvement coordinator met with the City of Gary and others to determine if there were community health concerns EPA reported that there were none specific to the Gary Development Landfill A 60-day comment period began when the site was proposed to the NPL on March 10 2011 and closed on May 9 2011 No comments were received
Future Uses of GDL
Although the complete remediation of GDL may not be possible ndash especially given the numerous other contamination sources surrounding GDL ndash contaminant control and exposure prevention are possible The City of Gary and others have expressed interest in using portions of GDL GDL is in an industrial part of Gary and easily accessible via major roadways It is also adjacent to the Gary Airport After many of the steel mills closed Gary has been trying to reinvent itself but the local economy has struggled due to the manufacturing decline resulting in high unemployment and poverty [NRS 2009] Expanding the airport is one investment opportunity the city is considering to generate income and jobs
Additionally many residents agencies and organizations recognize Calumetrsquos ecological importance and value its remaining natural areas The Calumet Initiative for example is a coalition of educational government nonprofit cultural business and philanthropic organizations that has been working for almost 10 years on projects and partnerships to revitalize the regionrsquos economy and environment More information on the initiative is available from httpwwwcooperativeconservationorgviewprojectasppid=761
The Grand Calumet River restoration is also part of the Marquette Plan which provides a large-scale vision for connecting attracting investment to and providing public access to the beaches
9
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
and natural areas More information is available from httpwwwcsueducercdocumentsRestorationSitesNWIndianaMappdf
Although the City of Gary and others may be interested in using portions of GDL liability issues (eg cleanup or management of buried wastes and leachate) have limited any actions Some of the suggested uses have included the following
bull Additional parking for the Gary Airport
bull A rental car facility for the airport
bull A commuter railroad station
bull A city composting facility
bull A wildlife preserve
This report does not evaluate the health implications of future use options ATSDR could provide a review if GDL uses or other conditions change
Conclusions
1 A 2002 and 2003 angler assessment concluded that the existing advisories and detailed fish consumption risk information was failing to reach Calumetrsquos angling community Therefore ATSDR concludes that people using the Grand Calumet River for recreational purposes may be exposed to contaminants in fish sediments and water Regularly eating fish from areas where there is an advisory over many years could harm peoplersquos health The elevated levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the fish represent a public health hazard
2 ATSDR concludes that infrequently eating small amounts contaminated sediments from dirty hands or ingesting sediments or water while swimming is not expected to result in illness over the short term ldquoWorst-caserdquo (ie over a year or more) exposures to PCBs and other SVOCs in sediments are unlikely and therefore would not harm peoplersquos health
3 Although Gary Development Landfill is mostly inaccessible to vehicles and it is difficult to walk around due overgrowth there were no signs warning of the hazards present on the landfill ATSDR concludes that active methane vents on the landfill pose a fire or explosion hazard for trespassers and other visitors to GDL and thus harm peoplersquos health
4 ATSDR concludes that contaminants in soils (wetland) sediments and leachate on GDL are sufficiently high to harm peoplersquos health but currently there are no exposures
Recommendations
1 The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) and local governments and organizations should provide continuous community notification and education on the hazards of eating fish from the Grand Calumet River This should include posting more signage along the river Additional angler outreach should also be implemented like those suggested in the 2002 and 2003 angler assessment Outreach should using new information channels
10
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
providing information aimed at minimizing risk through fish selection and preparation techniques and providing information in accessible formats The angler assessment suggested that new channels could include those outside the fishing-oriented network like church groups and kinship networks Another idea was to create a ldquoMaster Anglerrdquo certificate where experienced anglers offer classes including information on fish consumption avoiding highest risk areas and better species size and preparation choices
2 ATSDR recommends that EPA further restrict access to the surface contamination on GDL by posting signs indicating the hazards present on the landfill (particularly the fire and explosion hazard) and implementing institutional controls on digging unless special standards and procedures (eg a hazardous wasteexplosion safety plan) are followed by utility workers sampling contractors and others More sampling is needed to delineate the areas with surface contamination
3 If use of the GDL site changes ATSDR recommends additional environmental samples be collected to help determine the nature and extent of on-site contamination and that a reshyevaluation of public health impact of exposure be conducted
Prepared By
Diane Jackson PE Western Branch Headquarters Team Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Reviewed By
Carole Hossom amp Scott Sudweeks MSPH Western Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Susan Metcalf MD MSPH Lead Exposure Investigation Team Science Support Branch Division of Community Health Investigations (Proposed) ATSDR
Rick Gillig MS Chief Central Branch Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
Lynn Wilder PhD MSHyg CIH Associate Director for Science (Acting) Division of Community Health Investigation (Proposed) ATSDR
11
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
References
ATSDR 2000 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Public Health Statement for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (Atlanta Georgia November 2000) Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovToxProfilestp17-c1-bpdf
ATSDR 2001 US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Landfill Gas Primer An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals (Atlanta Georgia November 2001) ldquoChapter 3 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issuesrdquo Available from httpwwwatsdrcdcgovHAClandfillhtmlch3html Last updated November 2001
Chen HY Ko YC Lee CC 2008 Relationship between insulin sensitivity and exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in pregnant women Environ Res 107(2)245ndash53
Codru N Schymura MJ Negoita S 2007 Diabetes in relation to serum levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated pesticides in adult Native Americans Environ Health Perspect 115(10)1442ndash47
FDA 2011 US Food and Drug Administration Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition Chapter 9 Environmental Chemical Contaminants and Pesticides (April 2011) Available from httpwwwfdagovFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformationGuidanceDocumentsSea foodFishandFisheriesProductsHazardsandControlsGuideucm256690htm Last Updated 11092011
FWS 2003a Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume 1 Technical Report Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume1pdf
FWS 2003b Fish and Wildlife Service An Assessment of Injury to Human Uses of Fishery Resources in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal the Grand Calumet River Lagoons and Indiana Harbor and the Nearshore Areas of Lake Michigan Volume II Appendicies Available from httpwwwfwsgovmidwestGrandCalumetRiverNRDAdocumentsVolume2pdf
IDEM 1992 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Compliance Evaluation Inspection Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana Referral Package March 13 1992 (Prepared by PRC Environmental Management Rolling Meadows IL)
IDEM 2000 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Gary Development Corp Meeting Minutes March 10 2000
IDEM 2009 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Expanded Site Inspection for Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana November 18 2009
12
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
IDEM 2010 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Craig Pender Environmental Chemist to Mark Jaworski Site Investigation Section RE Hazardous Substances Associated With Specific Wastes Gary Development Landfill August 18 2010
IDEM 2011 Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office Memorandum from Bob Martin Geologist to Mark Jaworski State Investigations Section RE Hydrogeologic Assessment Gary Development Landfill Gary Lake County Indiana January 20 2011
ISBH 1976 Indiana State Board of Health Gary Development Landfill Memorandum to File from Bruce Palin Indianapolis IN November 12 1976
ISBH 1986 Indiana State Board of Health Internal memo on Renewal of Permit for Gary Development Landfill Indianapolis IN February 25 1986
ISDH 2010 Indiana State Department of Health 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Available from httpwwwingovisdhfiles2010_FCApdf
Jan J Sovcikova E Kocan A et al 2007 Developmental dental defects in children exposed to PCBs in eastern Slovakia Chemosphere 67(9)S350ndash54
Jan J Vrbic V Polychlorinated biphenyls cause developmental enamel defects in children 2000 Caries Res34 (6)469-73
NRS 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Proceedings) Fish Consumption Risk Perception Among Anglers in an Industrial Urban Area Available from httpwwwnrsfsfeduspubsgtrgtr-nrs-p-66papers08-fisher-p-66pdf
Rylander L Rignell-Hydborn A Hagmar L 2005 A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes Environ Health 428ndash33
USEPA 1983 US Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Assessment for Gary Development Landfill Prepared by Ecology and Environment Chicago IL June 29 1983
USEPA 2011a US EPA Region 5 site cleanups Gary Development Landfill Available from httpwwwepagovregion5cleanupgarylandfillindexhtml Website last updated on Wednesday June 29 2011
USEPA 2011b US Environmental Protection Agency Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record Ref 146 (IDEM Potential Sources 10-24-10 1page) US EPA Region V Chicago IL March 2011 Available from httpwwwepagovsuperfundsitesdocrecpdoc1840pdf
USEPA 2011c Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Available from httpepagovglnpoaocgrandcalhtml Last updated on Friday January 21 2011
Vasiliu O Cameron L Gardiner J et al 2006 Polybromated biphenyls polychlorinated biphenyls body weight and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus Epidemiology 17(4)352ndash59
13
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Wang S-L Su P-H Jong S-B et al 2005 In utero exposure to dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls and its relations to thyroid function and growth hormone in newborns Environ Health Perspect 113(11)1645ndash50
Westphal Lynne Longoni Mario LeBlanc Cherie Wali Alaka 2008 Anglersrsquo Appraisals of the Risks of Eating Sport-Caught Fish from Industrial Areas Lessons from Chicagorsquos Calumet Region Human Ecology Review Vol 15 No 1 (pgs 46-62) Available from httpwwwhumanecologyrevieworgpastissuesher151westphaletalpdf
14
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Gary Development Landfill Gary Indiana
F1shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 2 Images of landfill cover drainage area outbuilding methane vent and Grand Calumet River from site
visit July 2011
F2shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 3 Potential Hazardous Waste Source Areas Near Gary Development Landfill
[USEPA 2011b]
F3shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 4 Natural Areas near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]shy
F4shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 5 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Shallow Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F5shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 6 Sample Locations for IDEM 2009 Deep Sediment Samples
[IDEM 2009]shy
F6shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 7 Chromium detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 8 Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F8shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
[IDEM 2009] Figure 9 Picture of sample locations E2QR9 and ME2R9
F9shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 10 Pesticides detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F10shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) detected near Gary Development Landfill
[IDEM 2009]
F11shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
[USEPA 1983] Figure 12 Monitoring well locations at Gary Development Landfill in 1976
F12shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 13 EPA Grand Calumet River Areas of Concern (AOC)
[USEPA 2011c]
F13shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Figure 14 Summary of PCBs in (edible) fish tissue from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
[FWS 2003b]
F14shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Tables
Table 1 Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste Accepted at Gary Development Landfill
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Activated biological
sludge
1977 Unspecified Ammonia phosphorus sodium thiocyanate and phenol
Aluminum Dross 1979 300 tons per
day till 1980
Aluminum
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
separator bottoms
1977 200 cubic
yards per
year
Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzene Benzo(a)Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Chrysene Di-n-butyl phthalate Ethylbenzene
Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Toluene Xylenes
Cyanides (Total) Chromium (Total) Lead and Nickel
Asbestos Wastes 1980 Various one
day and
multi week
approvals
(50 to 700
cubic yard
one time
approvals
40 cubic
yards week
etc)
Various Asbestos varieties (eg chrysotile crocidolite amosite etc)
Calcium Carbonate 1976 30 cubic
yards per
day
Calcium carbonate
Calcium sulfate 1977 15 tonsday
Corn Syrup (Solid)
Carbon Filters from
Corn Syrup Filtering
1976 Unspecified No known
Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge (EPA Waste
1982 312000
gallons
Benzene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthylene Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzenethiol Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(a)Pyrene Chrysene Para-Cresol Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene
T1shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
Code K087) Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium
Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Fluoride Sulfide Styrene Dibenzofuran and 2-
Methylnaphthalene
Dripolene3 1975 4 to 5
truckloads
per day for 6
months
VOCs such as benzene and styrene and SVOCs such as dicyclopentadiene pentene 13
butadiene etc (httpwwwwestlakecom_filelibFileCabinetMSDS_-
_ALLVinylsVinyls_-
_Calvert_CityMSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdfFileName=MSDS_AROMATIC_GAS_2_pdf)
Filter Cake amp Kiln
Scrubber Mud
1977 1500
pounds per
week amp
3000
pounds per
week
(temporary)
Foundry Sand 1986 Unknown Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Copper
Iron Manganese Nickel Sodium and Zinc
Fly Ash 1980 95000 cubic
yards
Mercury Arsenic Boron Cadmium Lead Selenium Cobalt Aluminum Barium
Molybdenum Antimony Thallium and Chromium
Gypsum wastes 1976 Unspecified Gypsum
Herbicide 1977 120 cubic
yards
24-D 24-DB 245-TP(Silvex) 245-T Dalapon Dicamba Dichloroprop
Dinoseb etc
Lead Battery Casings 1982 60 cubic
yards
Lead
Lime slurry sludges
and wastes
1976
1977
Up to 5000
gallonsweek
80000
Lime
3 A pyrolysis fuel oil-water emulsion liquid httpwwwdtsccagovSiteCleanupProjectsuploadUnionCarbide_CEQA_dNegDecpdf
T2
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Adapted from [USEPA 1983 USEPA 2011 IDEM 2010]
Waste Year Quantity Possible Hazardous Substances Associated with Waste
gallons
month (no
more than
4000 gallons
day)
Neutralized sludges 1975 Temporary
approval
Unknown
Oil Sludge 1977 Unspecified Various SVOCs as noted for API separator bottoms
Paint sludges 1976 25 cubic
yards per
day (99000
gallons)
Lead Chromium Cadmium Barium Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Water and Vegetable
Oil
1978 4000 No known
EPA Waste Code F001 Tetrachloroethene methylene chloride trichloroethylene 111-
Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorinated Fluorocarbons
EPA Waste Code F002 Tetrachlorethene methylene chloride Trichlorethylene 111- Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene 112-Trichloro-122-Trifluoroethane Ortho-Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluormethane and 112-Trichloroethane
EPA Waste Code F005 Toluene methyl ethylketone carbon disulfide isobutanol pyridine benzene 2-
ethoxyethanol and 2-nitropropane
EPA Waste Code U147 25 Furandione
EPA Waste CodeU031 1-Butanol
EPA Waste Code U112 Acetic Acid Ethyl Ester
EPA Waste Code U154 Methanol
EPA Waste Code D001 Characteristic of ignitable
EPA Waste Codes for
Phenolic Waste
Phenolic wastes
EPA Waste Code K086
(Caustic Sludge and
paint washings)
Acetone Acetophenone Bis(2-Ethylhexl) phthalate etc
T3shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Table 2 Background Concentration Table
(showing highest analyte concentration detected and the 3x background concentration value)
CLP ID IDEM ID Analyte Concentration Qualifier Adjusted Value 3x Background
Concentration
METALS
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chromium (Total) 472 mgkg 1416mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Chromium (Total) 185 mgkg 555 mgkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Zinc 1020 mgkg 3060 mgkg
E2QQ7ME2QQ7 SDD1 (0-12 in) Lead 362 mgkg 1086 mgkg
PCBs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Arochlor 1248 25000 ugkg 75000 ugkg
PESTICIDES
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) delta-BHC 24 ugkg U 72 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) beta-BHC 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
E2QQ1ME2QQ1 SDA1 (0-12 in) Endosulfan 11 ugkg 33 ugkg
SVOCs
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Acentaphthene 14000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)anthracene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(a)pyrene 4700 ugkg 14100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7100 ugkg 21300 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Benzo(ghi)perylene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9000 ugkg 27100 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Chrysene 17000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Dibenzofuran 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDC2 (12-24 in) Fluoranthene 15000 ugkg 45000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Fluorene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Indeno(123-
cd)pyrene
17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Phenanthrene 17000 ugkg U 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ2ME2QQ2) SDA2 (12-24 in) Pyrene 11000 ugkg J 17000 ugkg 51000 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Fluoranthene 1700 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
(E2QQ1ME2QQ1) SDA1 (0-12 in) Pyrene 3300 ugkg J 5300 ugkgsup2 15900 ugkg
E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Fluoranthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
sup2E2QQ1 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-
028 Using Qualified Data to document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
T4shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Table 3 Key Metal Sediment Findings and Background Comparisons at Gary Development
Landfill
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
Concentration
(Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentrations
(Adjusted
Concentrations)
ME2QR3 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
1580 mgKg (J) (1225
mgKg)
262000 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
ME2QR9 Sediment 5509 Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
1720 mgKg (J) 1333
mgKg)
242000 mgKg
1740 mgKg
6340 mgKg
1x 185 mgKg
79000 mgKg
362 mgKg
1020 mgKg
ME2QS0 Sediment 5509 Chromium 2030 mgKg (J) (1574
mgKg)
1x 472 mgKg (J) (472
mgKg)
The background concentration used for Potassium in samples ME2QR1 ME2QR3 ME2QR9 ME2QS1 were derived
from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Potassium in samplesME2QR2 and
ME2QR4 were derived from background sample ME2QQ8 The background concentration used for Chromium in
samples ME2QR3 and ME2QR9 was derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background concentration
used for Chromium in sample ME2QS0 was derived from background sample ME2QQ2 The background
concentration used for Iron in samples ME2QR9 were derived from background sample ME2QQ1 The background
concentration used for Magnesium in samples ME2QR5 and ME2QR7 were derived from background sample
ME2QQ1 The background concentration used for Lead in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ7 The background concentration used for Zinc in sample ME2QR9 was derived from background sample
ME2QQ1
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull ME2QR3 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QR9 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Background Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull ME2QS0 Chromium Result Biased High and adjusted using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-94-028
Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T5shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Table 4 Maximum Sediment SVOC Concentration Onsite and Background Comparison
Sample
ID
Sample
Type
Date Hazardous
Substance
Hazardous Substance
concentration (Adjusted
Concentration)
Dilution
Factor
Background
Concentration (Adjusted
Concentration) E2QS2 Sediment 5509 Acenaphthene 480000 ugKg 20X 14000ugKg(J) (17000ugKg)
Anthracene 270000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Anthracene 600000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(a)Pyrene 540000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 700000 ugKg 4700 ugKg
Benzo(ghi)Perylene 130000 ugKg (J) (130000 ugKg) 7100 ugKg
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Chrysene 630000 ugKg 5700 ugKg
Dibenzofuran 220000 ugKg (J) (220000 ugKg) 9000 ugKg (J) (17000 ugKg)
Fluoranthene 2000000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Fluorene 440000 ugKg 15000 ugKg
Indeno (123-cd)Pyrene 160000 ugKg(J) (160000ugKg) 17000 ugKg
Phenanthrene 460000 ugKg 17000 ugKg
Pyrene 1100000 ugKg 17000 ugkg
11000 ugKg (J) (17000ugKg)
Background concentrations used in sample E2QR3 were derived from background sample E2QQ1 Background
concentrations used in sample E2QS2 were derived from background sample E2QQ2 except for Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene that were derived from background sample
E2QQ6
(J) The concentration is estimated
bull E2QS2 Acenaphthene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Chrysene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-
F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Pyrene Background Concentration was adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Benzo(ghi)Perylene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA
540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
bull E2QS2 Dibenzofuran Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in EPA 540-F-
94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination November
1996
bull E2QS2 Indeno(123-cd)Pyrene Concentration was not adjusted when using the procedure described in
EPA 540-F-94-028 Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination
November 1996
[IDEM 2009]
T6shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy
Table 5 Surficial Sediment Samples in the Grand Calumet RiverIndiana Harbor Canal (microgkg)
Compound Arithmetic Mean Minimum Maximum
Benzene 2847 18 7586957
Carbazole 71490 49107 117647
Benz[a]anthracene 201635 1044 25782609
Benzo(a)pyrene 184425 1154 16695653
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 178273 3071 15454545
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 115058 2143 12260870
Chrysene 236773 1153 25478261
Dibenz[ah]anthracene 36560 1286 2147059
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 118774 2944 14695652
24-Dichlorphenol 20818 12500 63333
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Arochlor 1242 18320 57959 526316
Arochlor 1248 70977 733 4170732
Arochlor 1254 17739 117 539823
Arochlor 1260 61411 44 4170732
Pesticides
Chlordane 2100 367 17083
Dieldrin 1334 167 17273
pprsquo-DDD 535 53 4336
pprsquo-DDE 3162 95 455909
pprsquo-DDT 999 12 20000
Endosulfantotal 1599 107 16094
Endrin 169 42 1597
Heptachlor 2571 336 36944
Heptachlor epoxide 1950 353 25733
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 1364 454 5833
Lindane (gamma-HCH) 2327 153 25417
TCDD ndashTEQ (tetrchlordibenzo-p-dioxin-toxic equivalents 47 000003 62
[FWS 2003b]
T7shy